Am Mittwoch 14 Oktober 2009 10:32:26 schrieb Dearlove, Christopher (UK): > I do not believe that a specific metric such as ETX should > be in the base OLSRv2 draft. As you say, the first question > would be "why ETX?". But not that the default will be a metric > whose meaning is implementation specific, not hop count (which > would be the default default so to speak if no one includes > any metric information). > > But that said, I would be delighted to see an Internet Draft > (which could be adopted and taken all the way to RFC in parallel > if that is the WG consensus) which described ETX, and maybe one > or two other, metrics and how to adopt them to the OLSRv2 metrics > TLV. This work could even start now referencing > draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics, to be updated to reference OLSRv2 > when folded in to that. This would be valuable support for the > metric concept. I don't think this will work well for OLSRv2. Most people using OLSRv2 for research (instead of doing research on OLSRv2) will continue to use the "basic RFC implementation" of OLSR... if the basic RFC does only contain hopcount they will use hopcount "to have comparable results to other experiments". Which will give them "still does not work well". I think we really need an appendix in the core document (similar to the appendix with an example MPR algorithm) that contains a simple metric algorithm. Without this "RFC conform OLSRv2" will still be nearly unusable. We could use any kind of metric algorithm for this appendix, but ETX is the only one (I'm aware of) that is a) independant of layer 1/2 b) easy to implement c) creates working mesh networks Hopcount does not provice c). Henning Rogge
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.